The God Conundrum

Anyone out there in the blogosphere had their days interrupted by the mosquito-like buzzing that Jehovah's Witnesses recently? I did today.

Aside: This is not some tyrannical rant about people telling me their beliefs. If you want that, simply tune in Fox and watch the O'Reilly Factor. No, seriously. End Aside.

The point of this, as you may have been told from the above "aside," is not to demonize people for foisting their beliefs off on me, but rather to try to foist mine off on you. You see, as they talked to me more and more, I realized two distinct things. First, that they didn't really sound like they had thought too deeply about the things they were talking about; and second, that they sounded an awful lot like other people who had talked to me about the exact same things. I include, in this bunch, most theologians with whom I have talked, including my priests growing up. It is, simply put, drivel.

So. What is faith? Other than a good buzzword come election season, that is? Any one? If you said it is the belief that God, or whatever, exists even though you can't see Him/Her/It, you aren't wrong, but you are miles away from right. I've spent some time thinking about religion, God, faith, and what-have-you recently, and, although you may not believe it, I have found my answer in Nietzsche. The good man, god-hater though he was, defined what language is for us in his essay "On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense;" namely, a series of metaphors with which we can describe an object. For example, the screen that you see in front of you has nothing about it that makes it a screen, but rather simply the label that we attach to it. We say that it is a screen, therefore it is a screen. The same is true about every thing. I say that I read books, therefore I read books. If I say that I read rollercoasters, and you agree that I read rollercoasters, then I read rollercoasters.

What does this have to do with God? Well, directly, nothing yet, but when one thinks about this, one will realize that because objects do not exist in the manner we are comfortable thinking about them (remember, that even images are metaphors, therefore pictures are also metaphorical, not only language, as is touch and sound.) reality does not exist in the manner we are comfortable with, it only does because we say and believe that it does. A rock can just as easily fall up when I drop it as down, it only differs in which way I perceive it to go. There is just as much nothing about the direction "up" that makes it "up," as there is about a "screen" that makes it a "screen." There is a true object that exists to these words, but because of how metaphorical our reality is (i.e. perceived through metaphor), we will forever be unfamiliar with what the true object is.

What about the word "God." What does that one mean? I mean it, this is an honest question, you have to define what God is. I hope that you can't do it, because if you can, you're either lying or a Baptist. Our conception of God is forever going to fall short, as our conception of any object falls short, but on a far grander scale. If God exists, in whatever version you want Him to (I'm going to use the words "God," and "Him" here so I don't have to add further disclaimer to nonChristians. It's simply shorter than "Allah," "Buddha," et al. Very sorry.), he does so in a manner that we will never slightly comprehend. I'm reminded of Book Four of Paradise Lost here, as Milton fallaciously tries to reconcile to himself what a divine conversation between God and angels would be like, and God sees the future and decrees that although Man will Fall, he will also be Redeemed. By believing in a unilateral God like this, (that is, one who is all-powerful, all-existent, and all-knowing) that God limits Himself. If God knows what will happen in the future, then He also knows what His reaction to the future will be, therefore limiting his own power. God cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time, for it presents a logical conundrum as evidenced.

So: what does this mean? Nothing really. I'm serious here, it means nothing. First it means that God cannot exist logically if He is these aforementioned things. But if God exists, He does it outside of the realm of our understanding. There is nothing to say that he exists in a fashion in which knowledge, power, or existence are even available. By caricaturing God into this petty Zeus-like image, perched in his lofty throne in the clouds, we demean what God is more than any heretic. That's what faith is. It is the belief in the one thing that is truly and forever incomprehensible to Man. By this here, God must both exist, and not exist. It simply depends on the subject on whether or not they say he does.

Understanding Iraq through Il Principe

Read the newspaper again today. Quick show of hands: any one else made that mistake recently? Looks awfully like the newspaper yesterday, doesn't it. Nothing seems to change, not really change. Things still seem to go the way of the dodo, and in a rather spectacular fashion usually. Here's a summation for those of you who are less than prudent newsaholics: John Edwards- adulterer; Russia and Georgia- at war; Iraq- quagmire. Seem familiar?

I hardly profess to being an expert on world happenings, but this struck a chord with me, so much so that it seemed like an adequate sort of thing to discuss for a first blog in this, the most wonderful of creations, the Internet. Of those three things, two of them actually happen to be newsworthy, for which I do commend my friends at the floundering STrib. As you may have guessed, they are not the ones that have to do with famous sex lives; they are the ones that have to do with world events. I thought that I might talk about them through the pane of a recent discovery of mine: "The Prince." In this essay, Niccolo Machiavelli talks about the difficulties in holding onto captured territory, and methods for which to do so effectively. Please bear in mind that he is writing, in Italian, some five hundred years ago, for a certain Medici, and not to the audience of today (seventh grade education, attractions to flashing lights, Larry King Live, et al.).

First, he talks about the laws and customs of a principality, and how and when one should change them. He claims that it is difficult to hold a region in which the customs and laws are unfamiliar to you, and yours to them. We wonder why Iraqis don't hasten to the bells of the Western revolution. Have Americans really begun to believe their own propaganda? A race of people doesn't grow up "hating freedom." The United States' notion of what "freedom" is seems extremely limited, insofar as it doesn't allow for a country to choose it's own system of self-governance. For purposes of my discussion, we can choose to refer to Iraq as a "hereditary principality," as it really was that until it's regent was deposed. It is stated, and rightly so, in this essay that this sort of region will be the most difficult of all to hold. As a citizenry begins to see the hereditary family as "belonging" to the throne, or rulership (read: Divine Right of Kings), they will see anyone who usurps that person as a transgressor. To continue to rule a hereditary principality, a brilliant leader is not needed, but simply an adequate one, and under Saddam Hussein, "at least the trains ran on time." (As quoted to me once by an old Spaniard in regards to Franco's regime.)

Further, since the hereditary rulers are seen as belonging where they are, any usurpation will fall if met with any significant challenges (of which there have been more than a few). Machiavelli writes that if the usurper has any of such difficulties, it is likely that the principality will fall right back into it's old owner's hands. As they have exterminated the hereditarily vested family (and rightly so), we see the conflict that exists today: a people accustomed to harsh reality seeking strict moral enforcement wherever it can find it, in this case, fanatical Islam. It shouldn't surprise the American military that this has happened, but rather it should surprise the American people that there was ever any question in regards to the outcome of their action.